"Now, as for whether or not fees are impediments. Why else would the NPS suspend fees if they were not some sort of impediment? Seems as though the creation of these fee-free weekends is a tacit admission that fees are preventing some people from visiting parks so have no fees will get them to come."

If fees are impediments - and I'm not arguing that they aren't - then it's based on psychology rather than the real economics of it. The fees are trivial compared to the costs of simply getting to the parks for a vast majority of the population and a vast majority of the parks. (I'm thinking the big parks here, not urban NPS units.) It seems like a lot of folks that would shell out a few hundred to go to an NFL game, $50 to take the family to a movie, or a couple hundred for an amusement park will cry hardship about $20 for a week in Acadia. (Ten bucks if you go in Mid-June before the crowds!)

You can't convince me that most of the people pouring into parks on these free weekends aren't living above the poverty level and wouldn't blink at losing $20. They're showing up because of the word "FREE". That's Sales 101. If they were free all the time, the luster would wear off and things would be back to normal.

I've heard people complain about fees, but the fact is that even the most expensive park is probably dirt cheap compared to a week at Disney World, etc...

If it is true that they are so small a part of their budget, and that removing them would increase visitation, maybe that is something that should be considered. Nonetheless, I do like the idea that, while we all own these places by virtue of paying taxes, the people who actually visit them pay a little more.

Also as others mention, many places don't charge fees, and for those that do, it's technically more of a parking fee, though I say technically because you can't access many places without a vehicle.

It feels like we've been over this ground a thousand times.

Rangertoo is correct in ridding us of an important myth; entrance fees do not pay for the parks. Yes, the money from them does go into the parks, but it's a sleight of hand to suggest they actually pay for the parks. The money from entrance fees is an accounting trick. Instead of funding the parks by means of Congress, Congress removes some of that money and expects entrance fees to make up the short fall. If revenue increased, it's just as likely that funding would be reduced. In other words, Congress funds the parks no matter the circumstance; the idea that your entrance fee is funding the park is simply not true.

The arguments against entrance fees are rather simple. First, if the national parks are public goods that are supposed to be available to all of the American public, which is exactly what they are supposed to be, then their cost is supposed to be paid for by the public at large. If payment is determined by use, the places aren't public goods but are essentially commodities whose value is determined by their popularity. Yet, if that's what national parks are, then their status in law should be re-defined, not as places protected in perpetuity, but places protected depending upon their popularity. Second, any cost whatsoever to entrance stratifies access, making the park more accessible to those with more money and less accessible to those without. Yet, a public good is supposed to apply to all the public equally, and so entrance fees accept the principle that some public goods are more for those with more rather than those with less. If national parks aren't such places, then the law should be changed to acknowledge that (perhaps, it's already a de facto truth since national parks are not all equally accessible for a whole host of reasons, but that's a larger discussion that questions the very nature of national parks).

It's not relevant whether fees are relatively more affordable. Some places - take for instance amusement parks or movie theaters - aren't public goods; whether they should be would be for another forum; however, the relative cost of seeing one rather than the other has no bearing on the question. If national parks are supposed to be there for all people (just as transit systems in cities, etc.), then any user fee associated with them is unfair. It doesn't matter that there are other things that may be more unfair; the greater evil of something else doesn't justify the lesser evil that exists.

It's also not relevant that user fees to national parks (or any other public good) generally don't affect impoverished people (because people in poverty already are shut out of most parks because it is too expensive even to make the trip). The fact that people in poverty are already shut out (except those few who are able to secure jobs in the parks) is not reason for further shutting them out and adding to the line of those who are shut out. If you are a modestly poor person who happens to live near a park, the user fee can in fact be a determining factor. Anything that serves to uphold and exacerbate an existing injustice, even if only barely, is not something worth supporting.

Of course, everything I am stating depends upon accepting that national parks are public goods, that they apply to all Americans equally as national parks, and that this arrangement in itself is something worth supporting. Do the Everglades really mean as much to me way down in Florida as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Glacier much closer to me? Does my American identity stretch that far, even though it would be nearly impossible to give me as much access to the former as to the latter? Perhaps, things are too big, and that lends itself to contradictions that are irresolvable. Perhaps, and we shouldn't be afraid of having that larger discussion. However, the premise as it stands suggests that parks are public lands, that the public is allowed to have access to the lands, and that there's no reason to have any formula at all that makes a place that much more accessible to those with more than those with less. When you add in my first point - that the user fees don't actually pay for anything except as a kind of congressional magic trick - then you realize that it's unfairness all for the service of absolutely nothing.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

Jim, you're correct that relative cost is irrelevant in a discussion of fairness. I'm apparently illiterate and read the question more as whether fees are a good idea.

I guess the original question asked if fees were "fair", so I probably shouldn't argue the point at all, given that my ideas of fairness are far from mainstream. If we wanted it to be truly fair, the poor people (many of whom don't pay taxes) should have higher entrance fees than those who pay lots of taxes since they already paid their admission on April 15th. And should I have to pay taxes to support programs that have no benefit to me, my community, or my state? If I hate nature, why should I have to support the parks at all? Those are questions of political philosophy with valid arguments on both sides, but nothing is ever going to be fair. If we go beyond taxes we can argue the fairness of excluding or including non-Americans, whether anyone other than Native Americans should even own a lot of this land, if the ownership of land is even a human right... Fairness is subjective and can be argued to absurdity. Hmmm, maybe that's what blog comment sections are for? :-)

Now if we want to argue if fees are a "good idea" or if they're legal, then we can use data and argue it. Those of you pointing out that entrance fees are trivial in the budget of the parks would lean me toward saying they serve no purpose. But why, if fees are so meaningless, would parks that can't collect them wish that they could?

In a better world, we would not pay entrance fees, as the general budget should cover the Park's needs. But we all know our system doesn't allow that to happen, and yeah, that's annoying. In the real world however, I'm happy to pay entrance fees to the Parks - it's one of the few things I still like about America. In fact, I wish we could designate where all our tax dollars went; I'd feel good about contributing to a sane system that supported sane values, rather than feeling like most of every dollar I give the government supports the military. Imagine - one less bomber - and we wouldn't have this conversation at all. The problem is so much larger than just the Parks, but thank goodness they're there for the sanity of us all. I'd do almost anything within reason to support the Parks - it feels right

Jim Macdonald -

First of all, I think your first point is that, assuming there is some number that you can put on how much it costs to run the parks, Congress funds the parks but reduces funding and expects it to be replaced with revenue from entrance fees. And you're also saying that if for some reason the parks had a surge in revenue from entrance fees, Congress can and would reduce its own direct funding.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point by noting that is, but I gather you're suggesting that even if revenue fell Congress would step in, and that therefore these fees are not necessary to fund the parks and that to say they support the parks is untrue. I doubt it's that simple, and given that the parks are underfunded it's a bit illusory to talk about a given figure that is needed to fund the parks. And while I agree that Congress might reduce funding if user fee revenue increased, I'm not so sure the reverse is true. So, to say "Congress funds the parks no matter the circumstance" is a confusing statement to make.

You also of course overlook the fact that under such an arrangement, these parks are paid for largely by everyone, but that some of the cost is shifted specifically to those who use them and create impact in them. I kind of like this. Although they are public goods, I think it's nice that the people who do visit them pay a slightly disproportionate share of maintaining them.

Also, yes it's not worth comparing public goods to private attractions. But I think people mention it because we sometimes hear complaints that the experience of visiting NPs (the entrance fees) are too expensive. And I think it's insulting because of how little you pay for an entrance fee, you get a lot for it. Of course everyone also is paying with their taxes, so maybe we should complain.

There are three million visitors to Yellowstone in a year. Let's say that only half of them pay at the gate (the rest have an annual pass, seniors pass etc.) Now, for the sake of arguement, let's say there are four people per car. That's still almost one hundred million dollars in fees. And these are all conservative estimates. Wonder how "trivial" Superintendent Lewis would find a hundred million dollar cut in her budget?
As for parks with entrance fees getting more money than those without.......duh!? Maybe it costs more to run Yellowstone or Yosemite than it does Santa Monica Mountains?! I'm sure that it costs more to run Yellowstone than it does to administer BLM or National Forest land of the same size.
I love your last post Kirby. Nothing in life is "fair". But I really think these fees are a good idea. Should we also do away with camping fees inside the park? Is it "fair" to charge for firewood? How about a t-shirt? It's not "fair" that that kid got a t-shirt and I can't afford one for my kid!
Jim, you sound like a socialist there buddy. That's OK, because I am one; but I still think these fees make sense given what special places and special protections National Parks are and need. Set up discounts for the poor (BTW, I'm that too), or even free passes. I don't care; but don't do away with the fees.

The belief that if fees went away Congress would step in and make up the difference is a little hard to swallow given todays economy and deficits. The answer in California apparently is to simply close state parks that are underfunded. Doing away with fees would more likely lead to increased visitation and lower park budgets to deal with it. In any case, and in the real world right now, there are no doubt folks driving through Yosemite Valley, around Old Faithful or along the rim of the Grand Canyon wondering what on earth we can do to REDUCE the number of park visitors! Our parks are already being loved to death! Maybe what we really should be doing is reducing fees in little visited parks and INCREASING them in busy parks. Or even limiting the number of visitors each day during the summer in such parks.